The Loyal Opposition
Both Digby and Glenn Greenwald have very interesting posts - here and here - expressing frustration that the Democrats appear to be backing away from the NSA wiretapping scandal. The Democrats seem to think they will look weak on security if they challenge the administration. Greenwald puzzles over why this is so, given that a plurality of the public believes Bush broke the law and was wrong for doing so: "I am genuinely amazed that the percentage of people who believe that Bush broke the law is so high, because Democrats have barely even made this case to the public."
Interestingly enough, the same could be said not just about wiretapping, or even the war in Iraq, but the war on terror generally. Immediately after 9/11, 87% of Americans expressed worry about terrorism, and 49% worried a 'great deal'. Two years later, in September, 2003, the Pew Research Center found 41% of Americans were not too worried or not worried at all, while only 13% were 'very worried'. Six months later, a Harris poll found only 9% worried 'often' while 45% didn't worry. Consider also the progression in the Polling Report's findings from October 2001 to January 2006: it is not since July 2004 that more than 20% of Americans have thought another attack is very likely, and that number now hovers around 10%. And about half of Americans believe a terrorist attack is not at all likely. All of this is without any major, or at least mainstream, public figure consistently arguing that the threat of terrorism is significantly overblown.
Digby, commenting on the NSA program, wonders why the Democrats get things so wrong: "The problem for Democrats isn't that they are seen as soft on national security. It's that they are seen as not believing in anything and therefore are not strong on national security." This seems right to us, but perhaps too hesitantly put because it still puts the emphasis on perceptions of their strength on national security. The Democrats generally lack a strong set of principles, and have so for a long time. The only disagreement we really have with Digby and Greenwald is their tacit belief that the Democrats can somehow spontaneously generate a spine and a sense of purpose. We don't have all the answers, but it seems pretty clear to us that the Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We should be asking ourselves, not the Democrats, how to present a principled opposition.
Interestingly enough, the same could be said not just about wiretapping, or even the war in Iraq, but the war on terror generally. Immediately after 9/11, 87% of Americans expressed worry about terrorism, and 49% worried a 'great deal'. Two years later, in September, 2003, the Pew Research Center found 41% of Americans were not too worried or not worried at all, while only 13% were 'very worried'. Six months later, a Harris poll found only 9% worried 'often' while 45% didn't worry. Consider also the progression in the Polling Report's findings from October 2001 to January 2006: it is not since July 2004 that more than 20% of Americans have thought another attack is very likely, and that number now hovers around 10%. And about half of Americans believe a terrorist attack is not at all likely. All of this is without any major, or at least mainstream, public figure consistently arguing that the threat of terrorism is significantly overblown.
Digby, commenting on the NSA program, wonders why the Democrats get things so wrong: "The problem for Democrats isn't that they are seen as soft on national security. It's that they are seen as not believing in anything and therefore are not strong on national security." This seems right to us, but perhaps too hesitantly put because it still puts the emphasis on perceptions of their strength on national security. The Democrats generally lack a strong set of principles, and have so for a long time. The only disagreement we really have with Digby and Greenwald is their tacit belief that the Democrats can somehow spontaneously generate a spine and a sense of purpose. We don't have all the answers, but it seems pretty clear to us that the Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We should be asking ourselves, not the Democrats, how to present a principled opposition.
2 Comments:
Interesting. Thanks.
It seems like a bit of a stretch, though, to suggest that those poll numbers reflect popular dissatisfaction or indifference to the "war on terror" as such.
Many of those who don't "worry about terrorism" may believe that the US military has the terrorists pinned down "over there" so that they can't fight us "over here".
Right-wing agonistes such as Krauthammer regularly point to the lack of attacks in the US since 9/11 as evidence of successful counterterror policy.
Of course, if there were many attacks they'd use them to argue for the same policy.
That aside, those numbers may actually reflect a great confidence in the efficacy of the "war on terror".
You needn't necessarily believe that the threat of terrorism is overblown to think another attack unlikely.
Poll numbers should always be read with caution. So long as nobody gives any other interpretation of these polls than the mainstream one, then it's true that they will remain of ambiguous political significance. But the point is that, it's remarkable how little fear of terrorism there is given that every major public figure plays up the threat. Just the sheer fact of going on with daily life gives people some sense of perspective - it is our political leadership that sustains an unjustified state of alarm. If someone made a consistent and clear case against the war on terror, it's quite possible people could finally accept what most seem to feel spontaneously - it's time to move on to other, more pressing problems.
Post a Comment
<< Home